Gumbi

Once again, you're making the mistake of assuming that BJJ'er blindly advocate taking the fight to the ground when this is certainly not the case. For knife attacks- if you want to disarm someone with a knife, you'll HAVE to engage in some sort of grappling to get it off them. When his buddies try to stomp your face in- this is where BJJ and grappling arts in general are usefull to AVOID going to the ground in such a situation. I'll guarentee you that Im much more difficult to take down than someone who doesnt know how to grapple. I can use my clinch skills to break free and stay on my feet if I want. Perfect example- Chuck Liddel. Assuming your attacker is alone and unarmed- fighting more than 1 opponent is a WHOLE new ballpark here and its no longer a fight, but getting jumped. Thats a completely different (and rather long) argument. Assuming the ground is your padded dojo How does the ground hurt me? Im the one whos comfortable there. The OTHER guy is the one who's getting slammed on the ground, not me. Brings me to a good point on the Gracies in Action when a karate instructor challenged the Gracie Academy and insisted that they fight on hard tile floor so "those grapplers wont be comfortable." Im sure they had different views when they suddenly found that they were the ones getting thrown to the ground. And with all the talks about punching, clawing the face, stomping each others heads in, and biting people's ears off, do you really think a few scrapes on the ground are going to bother someone? This was in response to your argument that someone will suddenly fight different under war conditions and different techniques will/wont work.

Wow, the number of videos I have on this computer alone of of street fights with BJJ...... Go to https://www.gracieacademy.com and take a look at the Gracies in Action series. Or dont, seriously I dont care anymore. If you want to insist that you know the "real way" to fight, then by all means go ahead and do so. I just really hope you dont get hurt one day.

Yeah, perhaps it was, but Im trying to convey a general idea here. Take something like escrima or knife fighting- a fighter would be very deadly with his weapons of choice, but how deadly is he when he no longer has them? Calling someone a "master" can be seen fit if they simply are better than you. He may be excelled in hand to hand (or any other part of combat for that matter) but that does not exactly mean hes a master at it. Your skill has to be better than that of your opponents if you want to survive- yes I agree. Now, as far as saying that JJJ wont work, let me rephrase this: The following techniques are VASTLY OVERRATED for determining fighting skill: eye gouging, biting, groin attacks I have friends that do JJJ, and as long as their answer for escaping an armbar isnt "oh well, I'll bite his leg" then theres nothing wrong with it. Like I said, the techniques are there, its just the training methods that need tweaking. First off, the whole idea of fighting someone on the ground is the idea of taking your opponent to his weakest point of the fight, while at the same time the place that you happen to be strong at (which in most cases is the ground). Beyond that, give me practical reasons why the ground should be avoided, and I'll give a BJJ'ers insight as best I can. Now as far as the guys being more combat efficient due to it depending on their life, thats a pretty bold statement to make- according to this reasoning, a marine or any armed serviceman would defeat an experienced MMA fighter. No one ever said "gee, I guess I'll just give up right now" in an MMA fight and decided he would be pounded into oblivion. Do you think Scott Morris didnt think he taking on serious bodily harm when Pat Smith lowered elbow after elbow to his head? Think Zane Frazier wasnt worried when he was getting stomped in the head by Kevin Rozier?

Yeah I get it, hes way too deadly to fight in a Mixed martial art competition. Biting and eye gouging were the ONLY restrictions in these MMA tournaments, and OFTEN THEY WERE IGNORED. Fights were not stopped should the rules be broken, but fighters were merely fined afterwards for their infractions. Fighters DID win after they were bitten and eye gouged by their opponents, proving that they were far from out of the fight. LETS ASSUME that all your deadly pressure points really work, but you cant use them in MMA (though there are no rules saying so, we'll neglect this FACT). 90% of your techniques are STILL LEGAL in these competitions. If you're art can ONLY work when Im trying to KILL someone, then it really doesnt say much about the flexibility of it does it? Wheres the logic in this? I can kill someone at will, but if I get into a fight with a belligerent drunk, I have to accept my beatdown? This particular scenario is exactly where you'd want to be skilled in the ground. If your opponent has a full mount, you'd better know how to escape, or else you're in for a world of hurt, and striking arts arent going to teach you how to do that. As far as getting a lock while trying to block these strikes- its hard, no one said it was easy, but with more training is becomes progessively less difficult. Its not? Choking someone unconcious isnt going to help you whe you're in an alley or bar or something? Breaking their arm isnt going to persuade them not to hit you with it? I work at a bar, its done a great job so far. As far as fighting with strikes or grappling, thats a matter of preference, but lets say you lock up a limb and return a strike- your opponent doesnt like that and comes back and hits you- all of a sudden you're in a fight. You're WAY off base here- BJJ was NOT developed as a sport. It was created by fighting on the streets of Rio de Janeiro. You realize some of the techniques are similar, but its mostly the training methods and methodology that set the two apart. BJJ has PROVEN itself in fights, both on and off the street and I have documented recorded proof of it- FAR more than Budo Taijitsu.

How about one of the regulars I train with who was a sniper in the marines for a number of years? Howabout my training partner whos in the marines and coming out of Princeton University with an Officers Rank (and teaches BJJ to his comrades). How about my coach who was in the Army for a number of years, winning wrestling titles while in there. I can prove my reasoning through statistics and results- how about you? Oh, spoken like a "true" Traditional martial artist.

The reason why JJJ was so popular on the battlefield was because, just as you pointed out, it involved weapons. Back then, hand to hand combat for a samurai was stressed about as much as hand to hand for a common marine (which is virtualy nil). If THAT is your argument, then yes, I'll agree- Its like saying that a sniper is a better weapon than a pro NHB fighter for warefare, theres no denying it, HOWEVER, the hand to hand of BJJ had been MUCH more successful than TJJ and that can also not be denied.

Im sure Bruce wouldnt tell me anything different- hes dead. As far as JKD is concerned, its a philosophy, not a style. It was the idea of using whatever works. And around the time of his death, Bruce was studying LOTS of Judo/groundfighting EVERYONE tries to finish the fight as quickly or as efficiently as possible. The throat is often well protected, since fighters tuck their chin (not to protect their throat, but to protect their chin) so it would be just as difficult to hit the throat as would be the chin. Its not like you're the first person to think of hitting someone in the throat, eyes, or groin. Its not as easy nor does it work as well as you seem to be implying. As far as pressure points, do you seriously think they're going to disable a fighter? Hold it right there- do NOT start with one of these "too d34dly for teh ring" arguments. Early MMA competitions allows virtually all techniques, and some in Brazil still hold true to these rules. The bottom line is that JJJ DID NOT fair well in these competitions. Now, you claim that you can hit the eyes/throat of an opponent effectively enough in a "real fight" to disable him/have different outcome than history has shown. All the techniques from BJJ are in JJJ, which means these guys knew the same techniques. If they proved incapable of doing these simple techniques, such as armbars and chokes, what makes you think you can do all the deadly stuff you claim you can do? Strikes are allowed in MMA competition. As far as simple grappling competition, to have people be somewhat lesser skilled on the ground than those who ONLY do the ground would be acceptable. Say, maybe a belt behind? Two belts would be pushing it though..... However, I've never trained with a straight JJJ black belt (with many years training) whos skilled surpased that of an experienced BJJ white belt (with many months training). Now, as far the techniques of JJJ go, Im not sold on their striking techniques, simply because many of them were used when samurai's wore armor. Movements were based on using the momentum of the armor to aid in the strike and such. With a pair of jeans and t-shirt, this doesnt transfer over well. The throws and the grappling techniques are pretty much all the same. The problem lies in the method they teach these techniques and the way the students refine them. Its completely different to drill the move on a non resisting opponent, and then to set it up against someone who's actively trying to defeat you.

Do you mean grappling competition or MMA competition? What do you think would be so dramatically different for a fight?

When Kano said that, he didnt imply that JJJ was ineffective, but just pointed out that it had no real overall strategy. Let me see if I elaborate a bit. I've taken some Tai Jitsu classes and some of the techniques I've seen were a wristlock from a jab attempt and minor ground escapes. Since it teaches all aspects of a fight in one, you kinda become a jack of all trades, but master of none (similiar to MMA fighters who start off training in MMA gyms rather than having been a wrestler, Jiu Jitsu fighter, or boxer/kickboxer prior). Now, a skilled Jiu Jitsu fighter often has a set strategy in mind- "I want to take my opponent down where he cant strike me effectively, improve my position to a more dominant one, and eventually work a submission." This is seen within the whole scoring system of a tournament. And I also only used this as an example- Ground and Pound and Sprawl and Brawl fighters have their strategies too. But I've never seen emphasis for passing a guard or improving your position from a JJJ class- in fact I've seen many techniques that attempt to attack your opponent from inferior/unfavorable positions. Basically what Im saying is that JJJ does not have the same strategy that BJJ does. Absolutely, I wasnt trying to imply anything else. What I WAS trying to imply is that these are physical skills like anything else and need to be practically applied to be learned. You can practice ALL the techniques in the world as much as you want, but if you never try them on a resisting opponent, you'll never become proficient at them. Let me see if I can give you an analogy of what Im trying to say If I want to become a better hitter in baseball- I grab a bat and stand in my backyard and just swing the bat, its not going to go too far in terms of improving my batting skill in an actual baseball game (it helps some, but not a lot). A better alternative would be to throw a ball up in the air and hit it, or hit the ball off a tee. Now we're getting physical resistance, Im actually aiming for something to hit rather than thin air (improving my hand eye coordination in the process) and its going to yield better results than if I simply did as mentioned before. An even better alternative would be to have someone pitch the ball to you while you try to hit it- now you're working your resistance, hand eye, and timing speed. Now its completely different for a baseball player to practice hitting curve balls in practice than in a game, because during practice he knows the pitcher is throwing a curve- in a game, each pitcher is going to have a different approach, different setups, and different styles that he'll have to adjust too. The more "game experience" he has, the better his chances. I hope I wasnt too confusing

Dont get me wrong here (Im not trying to slam your style) but Tai Jitsu hasnt proved itself as being one of the more effective styles for 1 on 1 fighting, let alone 2 on 1. Meridians? As far as aiming in the right spot to knock someone out/disable them, thats no less difficult than hitting them in the jaw with a solid right cross- in other words, its very difficult to do, easy to theorize. Vitually ALL sportive martial arts have proven more effective than so called combat arts in all venues of competition (including challenge matches with Judo vs JJJ and BJJ vs JJJ). All skills you are taught in martial arts are physical skills, and therefore need to be developed. Competitions allow a place for these skills to be developed, as does the live sparring held in classes of sportive MA's. If all you do is train moves without actually sparring live with people, you're not advancing your skill as much as you'd like to think.

Dont misunderstand the argument here. We said certain styles are better than others, not that the other styles are useless/ineffective. No ones debating whether you know of people who have developed good skills in martial arts deemed lesser to others. Could you give more insight as to why you disagree? For instance, lets take a style like Tae Kwon Do and compare it to something such as Wrestling or Judo. All 3 are Olympic sports and *arguably* have roughly the same level of popularity. How could you explain that Wrestling and Judo have had MANY successfull fighters in MMA competition and TKD has no where near as much success? How can something such as Muay Thai, which is FAR less popular than virtually any karate style, have so many more strong competitors?

Draven, I hope your friend doesnt train to "fight" If he does, I certainly hope he didnt get that idea from whoever is teaching him.

I work as a bouncer in a bar- its never presented a problem with BJJ BJJ involves more than just ground fighting- clinch fighting is part of grappling/BJJ. While we dont exactly look like Muay Thai guys, we know how to dominate a clinch. This means we can set up throws and slams and send our opponent crashing to the ground, while we remain standing. If one cant do that, he at the very least can dominate a clinch so as not to get hit. See the above explaination. BJJ teaches you how to get up properly should you get thrown to the ground (as opposed to getting punted in the face Gerard Gordeau vs Telia Telu style). Your training will help you regain your feet, and when on your feet will help you to STAY standing, certainly much better than any striking art would. In this case, a nice striking and grappling combo of skills would be most desirable and in my eyes most efficient (though still being inefficient). Then we're not talking unarmed combat here are we? There are weapon defences shown in BJJ (as well as numerous other arts) but I find them to be rather silly (regardless of what art you practice). Besides in the event someone DOES have a weapon, in order to disarm them you HAVE to engage in some sort of grappling. That is exactly what made BJJ so popular in the first place- the ability to fight and defeat an opponent thats faster, stronger, and bigger than you are and its been quite successfull at it. You can say which styles have had the most success. If you're a 220lb smashing machine, then you can do just fine with about any style (or even no style at all). You always hold an advantage if you're larger than your opponent. Evidence shows however against larger more aggressive opponents its almost inevitable that they will grab you at one point or another during the fight with high chances of it going to the ground. A street fight is a street fight- theres going to be ground wherever you're fighting (unless you're tossed overboard on a cruise ship). Fights have a habit of being very repititive in nature.

In terms of fighting, this would most likely be due to the lack of knowledge of well roundedness for a fight. A good analogy would be comparing the early UFC and Pride competitions to the more modern ones. The fights are definately much more brutal, not because the fighters are, but because so many fighters didnt know what to do when thrown to the ground (as a result, got their head stomped repeatedly, caught kicks the face, or took repeated elbows to the face). Nowadays may not seem as brutal, but only because fighters are well prepared for whatever comes their way in any phase of combat. That and the referee stops the fight when one fighter is judged unable to defend himself (TKO) as opposed to waiting until hes completely unconcious under old rules.

You dont need to be well rounded for the street (though it certainly does help). The first UFC's were probably the closest thing to an actual street fight that you could simulate- overly aggressive opponents, some trained in martial arts, other simply harden bar room brawlers. Clinching is almost inevitable in any fight, and unless you're fighting someone who's better in the clinch than you are (and wants to use it to STAY on his feet) chances are high you can take it to the ground.

Best Striking Muay Thai Best Takedowns Wrestling Best Submissions Brazilian Jiu Jitsu Best Grapple technique BJJ Best Ground BJJ Best Stand up Muay Thai Toughest Training Muay Thai Most Complete style (thats effective) Judo, even though lacking in strikes. ((Add more sections at your content)) Keep in mind, this is all just opionion of others and to allow some understanding of the many other styles out there.

I hate this argument, I really do. The individual martial artist wins or loses the fight when hes adequately crosstrained (such as today's MMA fights, for example). However, the fact that certain styles have produced an astronomically higher number of champions than other styles is obvious proof that some simply are more effective than others. Certain schools and styles simply are more superior to others and thats a cold hard fact of life.

Japanese Ju Jitsu also lacks any real general strategy. Kano described it as a "collection of tricks" to use in different situations. Brazilian gives an overall strategy (take the opponent down, pass the guard, gain full mount, etc). JJJ doesnt engage in live training/randori near as often as BJJ does either and can very often teach other aspects of an art besides unarmed combat (sword drawing for example)

Kazushi Sakuraba (aka the "Gracie Hunter") was quite a skilled grappler in his own respect- hes got an extremely unpredictable and unorthodox grappling style (in addition to already quality grappling skills)that just seems to work so well against other grapplers. None of the Gracies ever had good takedowns, and Sak himself has a pretty wicked low single leg. Most matches have him standing up out of the guard of a Gracie and simply kicking his legs. He submitted Renzo with a nice Kimura, spanked Ryan (literally), technically submitted Royler (although he didnt tap) and made Royce throw in the towel after a 90 minute fight.

1kickKO- Im curious as to what tournament this was- According to current BJJ rules, you are not allowed to pull guard if you have not tied up with your opponent in any way, otherwise you'll be penalized. In ADCC, pulling guard will get you -1 point (but not until after the first 5 minutes when the scoring starts)

Actually, if you want to talk about sport, the Gracies usually in fact spend more time on top rather than on the bottom. Royler prefers to fight from the top. Rickson had told him that when you develop your style, making your game on top is very good- in the event of a tie, the top guy usually gets the win/ looks as if he is winning. Royce will even fight for the takedown on his feet before pulling guard. This obviously goes for BJJ (with the gi) because most of the Gracies (and most BJJ black belts for that matter) cross train extensively in Judo (or have developed Judo throws). Submission grappling is a different story though- Roylers takedowns without the gi are not particularly good. He'll pull, but usually to a sweep position (such as X-guard or some butterfly guard variant) so that he can get on top. I wouldnt say that they "like" being on their back as much as they're comfortable being on their back. Remember that Helio (and almost all the Gracies for that matter) grew up fighting in days where there were no weight classes. Being on the smaller side, they were often forced onto their backs and therefore developed that aspect of their game. That is simply a consequence- they'd all prefer to be on top. Even someone like Royce who made his name with his guard (in MMA anyways) would prefer to be on top than bottom. He only pulled in MMA when he couldnt take his opponent down. I pull guard alot too and its my most comfortable position, but I do this in competition for 2 reasons: I stand the best chance of submitting my opponent from my guard, and I dont feel time limits are long enough yet to work off my feet (maybe in 7 minute matches I'll start to play off my feet) and I want to get the fight to the ground as quickly as possible. I do realize though that gone are the days where BJJ guys could get away with having bad to non existent takedowns, so I do work my takedowns on a regular basis.

Actually no I havent- I've done minimal cross training with some Muay Thai and Boxing (minimal as in less than 10 classes). They arent official classes, but rather my fellow BJJ friends teaching it to me since they've had experience in it. I'd admit the gas is different, but I cant say I've even come close to gassing while practicing, and I do it immediately after training back to back BJJ classes on Saturday.

My flexibility certainly helps when I train, thats for sure. I think the most important flexibility for BJJ is your back/spine/hamstrings (they all kinda go together). Im fortunate to be able to be stacked and remain comfortable. It also helps me escape alot of guillotines as well. As far as endurance is concerned, its one of the things Im known for, and I do no running at all.

Be a man and let your ears deform! In all seriousness though, I'd suggest the headgear that has the hard plastic coverings- I believe they do much better to protect your ears than the ones pictured above. The ones above work fine, but when my ears started to get mangled and I'd try to throw on a set of headgear, the soft ones pictured above helped a little, but not nearly as much as the hard plastic ones.

Be a man and let your ears deform! In all seriousness though, I'd suggest the headgear that has the hard plastic coverings- I believe they do much better to protect your ears than the ones pictured above. The ones above work fine, but when my ears started to get mangled and I'd try to throw on a set of headgear, the soft ones pictured above helped a little, but not nearly as much as the hard plastic ones.